movies are inherently passive entertainment and the friction of needing glasses for everyone watching was probably enough to kill it for the average user. I think some people got headaches from the effect too and you couldn’t really have some people watching without glasses at the same time.

The glorified pop-up books killed 3D. That’s most of what people saw, so that was their perception of it.

Based on what I heard it was mainly cost vs benefit. It was mainly an expensive gimmick, as not only you had to buy more expensive equipment that had its limitations (expensive glasses that had to synchronise with the TV or very narrow fields of 3D), but also had to have channels with 3D (which might’ve cost extra) or more expensive media that was capable of delivering 3D.

While streaming could have been a contributing factor, due to it killing traditional TV channels and basically DVD sales, it seems that overall 3D cinema declined very fast as well. This is probably because how expensive it was for both cinemas and production companies, and production companies often resorted to cheaper alternatives rather than equipment that would actually film in 3D, leading to a much less satisfying effect. So as the 3D effects got shallower, the whole gimmick in theaters died, and probably the whole 3D fad.

I was the opposite and it was detrimental working in a lab with stereo 3d. One of the main guys could not see 3d and he was great at perfecting the calibration because of it. I was awful at calibration because 3d shot into view so easily.

I also cant see 3D movies for the same reason. Cant see magic eye puzzles either.

They’re just not the same for me, unfortunately. They have a place, but I prefer reading.

Are audiobooks with subtitles still audiobooks?

I’ve seen a few, but it’s still kind of controversial. That being said, there is a time and a place for agile where it works, but also there is a team composition and a style of agile which works and that style tends to piss off micromanaging middle managers, so it rarely is allowed.

I had an article saved in my work slack before I left that company (for health reasons), but a currently popular one seems to be this one: https://johnfarrier.com/agile-failure-what-drives-268-higher-failure-rates/

My take is based on years of interaction with companies and friends in other companies. The biggest problem isn’t necessarily Agile, but instead that agile is not intended for long term projects. Agile is fantastic in short turnaround interactions such as web dev, and because these short turnaround places have such easily visible results, managers take them to be gospel. Thus comes Corporate Agile: https://web.archive.org/web/20240524230754/https://bits.danielrothmann.com/corporate-agile Link is from the Internet archive because I can’t find his new site if he moved.

Long story short, corporate agile is the agile the bosses want, as it allows them to be constantly involved with more and more “agile” meetings. You know. Meetings. The antithesis of Agile. The place productivity goes to die. I had to remind our bosses that Agile dictated that stand ups included the developers and the scrum master ONLY multiple times and pointed them to the agile training they gave me. Didn’t matter. They’re the boss. This is a pretty common breakdown in Agile. So, that turned daily standup into daily meeting, since the quick status updates now had to be broken down for the boss. Every. Single. Day.

Agile at its most basic is intended to reduce meetings to once a week so the rest of the time can be spent developing. Every company I know starts including devs in at least 300% more meetings (even junior devs) after switching to Agile for at least 6 months. And on average, it takes half an hour for a programmer to return to the level of productivity they hit before any interruption. This is generally due to the limitations of working memory. (Many research papers on this if you want.)

But to get back to the original point. Because agile concentrates on short immediately tangible and verifiable benefits, any progress that takes longer than a sprint isn’t allowed. (It actually is, with proper implementation, as Agile is supposed to be edited on a team by team basis to make things work, but companies want everyone on exactly the same page.) Guess what doesn’t have immediately tangible and verifiable benefits? That’s right, research. Guess what it’s still in a research phase? Aside from basically anything that isn’t in market yet, self driving technology is very much research driven. Lots of trial, error, and long development cycles. Longer than a sprint for sure. And anyone who says self driving is in market should try an exercise if finding one level 5 self driving car that hasn’t been recalled due to false marketing or safety concerns. The technology isn’t there yet. It could be getting there, but profits are getting in the way of progress.

I’m pretty sure I could get usb-c to HDMI and a Bluetooth controller and play phone games on my TV with just my phone.

I recall talking to a vendor back… 8 years ago? Who had a colleague trialling hololens augmented maintenance. I personally felt it would be amazing to be able to look at equipment, bring up a model and explode it to get a look at (Yeah I know you can do that with a laptop, manufacturing lines have notoriously shitty wifi, not to mention greasy around equipment), assisted procedures were a cool idea too, helps people who may not be super familiar with your specific equipment, like shift or loaner maintenance people.

Over a decade ago, different company, they had a bounty on video procedures, you’d strap a go pro to your head and record something like changing batteries, replacing o-rings, removal of electronics etc for a cash bonus. I’m a text and photo person but I totally see the value in video documentation.

Microsoft had a demo at an ignite conference in 2020 if I recall of hololens doing ar metrics, person looked at things like the elevator and would give them real-time performance data, definitely a gimmick but I still think AR could be useful in an industrial setting.

I think the previous comment was about phones like the samsung flip

Image source

I’ve got the station that empties the Roomba and it actually takes forever to completely fill (I run it often too).

Not saying you should buy a Roomba; if I could go back in time I’d probably get a Roborock due to the S9+ having atrocious navigation and constant strange errors (“battery not found”).

Not sure if they’re a “leader” but I got two shark robot vacuums (same model) that are excellent. In the past I have purchased the “bump around and vacuum in circles and hope they don’t get stuck” type and they were just ok. The new ones I have can map the room with IR and you can program no go spaces in the app. I have two because the downside is it can only map one floor at a time so if I wanted it to run on two floors one would be mapped and the other would be “random bumping around” method.

The new one also came with a tank so if I run it on the whole first floor and it gets full it’ll go empty itself and start back up again.

I got em last year and ran me around $350 each I believe.

I have not the newest but relatively new models from iRobot (Roomba) and Neato. The Roomba has more features, but I prefer the shape of the Neato for getting up against walls and corners. I would recommend either.

Yea. All the self emptying docks make them really tall, but I’d love it if the bin was on the side and pulled out forward.

Someone should make one specifically designed to be hidden underneath shit. It’s not a decoration or talking piece.

deleted by creator

The 30 seconds is a buffer between entering the space and spinning, so it doesn’t catch you running up. Like if it starts recording as you enter the room, how do you know when it started/stopped recording